Kolkata Court January 2004 Judgments
Joint Cit Vs. West Bengal Trading Agency
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Kol.)917
The appeal of the revenue for the block periods 1988-89 to 1998-99 is directed against the order dated 28-3-2001, of Commissioner (Appeals)-XV, Kolkata. Parties have been heard and record perused.The respondent belongs to Aparna Group comprising of 9 units. In this case there was a search in course of which some documents had been seized. The assessing officer had completed the block assessment in this case computing the undisclosed income at Rs. 1,90,54,750 for assessment years 1988-89 to 1998-99 (part). The Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted certain additions some of which are subject-matter of appeal before us.The first ground of appeal is relating to the addition of Rs. 59,29,670 for assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 1,85,000 for assessment year 1998-99 (part) made on account of unexplained cash transfer to the assessee. The addition has been made by invoking provisions of section 69A. The addition was made on the basis of the entries made in the personal diary of Sri K.D. Paul, the...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ismail @ Gultania Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN198
Amit Talukdar, J.1. Two questions which crop up in this jail appeal can be met with the single answer. The conviction of the convict/appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court in respect of the charge of Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh); in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on 15.3.2000, has been questioned on the ground that the provisions of Section 42 of the said Act was not complied with in so much as PW, 3, who acted on a source information and apprehended the convict/appellant, did not send inform ition to his Superior Officer as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the said Act and there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the said Act as the right to be searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, was not informed t...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN419
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Nakul Das, the sole appellant from jail preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore passed in connection with S.T. No. 2(5)/1999 corresponding to S.C. No. 16(9) 1998 arising out of G. R. Case No. 2670/1996 relating to Chitpore P. S. Case No. 333 dated 10th November, 1996 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for murder of his wife Sabitri Das and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. On 10.11.1996 at about 6.40 p.m. Sabitri Das, wife of the appellant was brought to emergency unit of R. G. Kar Hospital by the appellant and his neighbours with hundred per cent burn injuries on her body. The prosecution case is that soon after admission in the emergency unit, Sabitri Das gave a statement to the attending doctor that on 10.11.1996 at about 6.15 p.m. she was assaulted by her ...
Tag this Judgment!Nihar Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Juthika Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT116(HC),2004(3)CHN300
Gorachand De, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipur in Title Appeal No. 295 of 1998 by which he affirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 31st May, 1996 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 126 of 1996. The trial Court by the said judgment dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit on 19.9.1988 for declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant in respect of the suit premises along with further declaration that the notice dated 31.8.1988 sent by the defendant being vague and unfounded is not binding on the plaintiff and that the agreement for leave and licence dated 1.12.1986 was never executed between the parties. A prayer was also made for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.3. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Roy Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN643
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. Petitioner by a deed of sale executed on or about March 23, 1998 conveyed lands measuring about 2 acres to the respondent colliery (Annexure P-1). It is the case of the petitioner that at the material time there was in operation a scheme providing for appointment to such land losers or persons from whom land has been acquired by the company for its requirements. Annexure P-2 is the said scheme dated December, 1984. Annexure P-3 is said to be the scheme operating from April, 1991. Under the aforesaid scheme the requirements for providing employment is, inter alia, that one employment subject to a maximum of two employments from a family is to be granted in case where land acquired is more than 3 acres. In respect of lands purchased from January 1, 1985 and thereafter the eligibility for grant of appointment is that minimum 2 acres of land should have been purchased from a family. Appointment is to be given to the land loser or his nominee subject to upper age limit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahida Khatoon Bibi Vs. Debilal Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal191,(2004)3CALLT32(HC),2004(4)CHN460
Gorachand De, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-6-1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 769 of 1979 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1979 passed by the learned Munsiff, 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 397 of 1973.2. The plaintiffs-respondents Debilal Shaw and four others filed a Suit on 27-1-1973 against Ram Adhar Dube and Smt. Sahida Khatoon Bibi praying for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 27th June 1972. The plaint case in brief is that the defendant No. 1 Ram Adhar Dube was the absolute owner of a Bastu measuring 21/2 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 393 Khatina No. 310 of Mouza Jaichandipur P.S. Budge Budge, District 24 Pgs. (South) along with the structure standing thereon fully described in the schedule to the plaint, that the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same at a ...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Devi and ors. Vs. Md. Jalil Answari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN66
Garachand De, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th July, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 93 of 1986 by which the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1986 passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 1980 of the 1st Additional Court of Munsif, Howrah was reversed.2. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Bindadin Tiwari. The plaintiffs' case in brief is that the said Bindadin Tiwari was a thika tenant in respect of the suit land measuring about 3 Kottas and 6 Chittaks on which he had fifteen rooms, including the shop room with brick walls and R. T. roofs and other fitting and fixtures fully detailed and described in the schedule to the plaint. Bindadin died on 11.5.75 leaving behind his widow (plaintiff No. 1) and three minor sons (plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4) who were in khas possession of two rooms and let out the other rooms after mutating their names. It is alleged that the defendant Md. Jalil Ansar...
Tag this Judgment!Purnima Ghosh and ors. Vs. Rekha Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN135
G.C. De, J.1. The defendants preferred this second appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of reversal passed on 13.11.90 by the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 32/1987. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1986 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Addl. Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 78/76 and decreed the suit.2. The facts of this case in brief are as follows :Bhabani Charan Ghosh and Abhijit Ghosh claiming themselves as the owners of the premises No. 50C, Ritchi Road, Calcutta-19, filed a title suit being T.S. No. 152/74 on 6.5.74 before the Second Court of Munsif at Alipore alleging inter alia that the defendant Anil Kumar Ghosh was a monthly tenant under them in respect of a southern garage of the said premises at the rent of Rs. 20/-, payable according to English calendar month under the erstwhile owner of the entire premises Sm. Manjusree Shyam Chowdhury, that ...
Tag this Judgment!MohinuddIn Middya Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN417
P.N. Sinha, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 11.7.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 176/2000 and thereby dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner as husband opposite party in the Court below alleging that the petition under Section 125 of Cr. PC is not maintainable.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the opposite party No. 2 was married with the petitioner in 1989 according to their Muslim rituals and customs and they are Muslim by faith. At the time of marriage of petitioner with opposite party No. 2, she was a divorcee. The opposite party No. 2 used to spend most of the time in her parent's house and finally taking away gold ornaments and other articles she went away to her father's house. The opposite party No. 2 tried to create pressure upon him in different ways to obtain property and money. Finding no other alternative to save his life and property, he divorc...
Tag this Judgment!Renuprova Paul Vs. Sannyasi Charan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal118,2004(4)CHN78
Amitava Lala, J.1. It appears to this Court that a reversal decree passed by the first Appellate Court reversing the dismissal of the suit is the subject-matter of consideration by the second Appellate Court. Although no points were formulated by the Division Bench of this Court at the time of admission of the appeal but there can not be any embargo in formulating such points at the time of hearing as the law prescribes for the same. Therefore, the appeal will be heard on the points that--1) whether the non-compliance of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff/purchaser is good enough for the purpose of contesting the issue as against him ?2) whether the power-of-attorney being exhibit (2) is a valid piece of document for the purpose of admissibility in evidence ?2. It appears to this Court that the Court of first instance discussed the matter thoroughly in respect of both the accounts. So far second point is concerned, it was held that there should be due compliance of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »